tv [untitled] September 24, 2011 12:00am-12:30am PDT
1907. there is no record of it. there has been no or early maintenance work. there have been three permits, one in 2003, 2005, and 2010. none of them has been -- has the final signature from the inspectors from the -- from the inspectors, from the city inspector. there also has been violations of the san francisco health code, there have been dead pigeons on the alleyway, there is pigeon droppings. you can see them maintenance of the walls of the building, the back entrance of the building. [bell] we're talking about putting in a ton of equipment on the second floor of the building and on the
steeple of the building. none of this has been maintained with any signatures from city inspectors. this is the residential neighborhood. president olague: there were two bills. >> sorry, i heard the first one. thapresident olague: that was the second. >> there is another permit request for another macro side -- site. that is within 450 feet of this site. president olague: thank you. there are two bills that go off. the first one and then that is the 32nd warning and a second bill. -- there are two bells that go off. the first one and then that is the second warning and a second bell.
>> there is a clock and you can look there. sometimes it gets confusing even appear -- up here. president olague: the next speaker. >> good afternoon. president and commissioners of the city planning. thank you for placing this on your agenda and to give us an opportunity to make our presentation to express our concern. i live one block away from the church. i have grown up in the russian hill neighborhood and lived here for over 30 years and i've raised a family here. i love this community because a church we can go to on a sunday service. i have attended various
services -- many services and there in spring and i wish i could go more often. i am here to express opposition. -- i have attended many services and they are inspiring and i wish i could go more often. we have collected 340 signatures of property owners, merchants, residents, and the immediate -- in the immediate neighborhood. larkin street is a heavily traveled street where families walk their children past the church to and from school. they drop the children off to and from playground centers. on the diagram i am presenting, there are 70.3% signatures that were collected from the residents who live within a three had a foot radius. [bell]
-- a 300 foot radius. the people who signed the petition are concerned with safety and security. safety, at the church built in 1907 is a wooden frame building. the estimated weight of the system in the church steeple is 1 ton. the building has not been well maintained for many years -- bless you. -- the building may list its structural integrity. -- lose its structural integrity. [bell] president olague: thank you. >> good afternoon, distinguished members. i am a resident of 1425 vallejo,
a condo abutting the church street a few dozen feet from the tower. i surveyed the residence and there is great concern about the impact and the residential quality and universal concern of the neighborhood. there is an understanding and belief this is neither necessary nor desirable. can you please turn on the overhead? we have great coverage in the neighborhood. this is where -- the church building. 450 feet of residential area. 450 away. -- feet away. we have great coverage. i have done an iphone survey. five bars everywhere. as few as four balls. i made a call to another at&t
floor. slamming doors where i could get inside. ever -- excellent coverage. this is some of the best coverage in the city. that is at&t. there is t-mobile. they did a similar service, similarly excellent coverage. at&t is 6 to eight months away from a merger to come by the networks buy their admission and announcement? even with the government opposition. analysts estimate 50% closure rate. if they do not close they have a plan to do a deal to combine the networks. can you please put this back? so residential area, excellent coverage. redundancy of two networks. no citywide plan. please help us with your vote. at&t is a corporation for their shareholders. we're counting on you to vote -- help the residents. thank you. [bell]
>> trevor coop, renee hallings. >> the president is not here and commissioners. i am lily lee. i live in a three-unit flat on the 2000 block of larkin street where the church resigns. thank you for having us here. i am sure you have been through many of these hearings and understandably, you are frustrated without a comprehensive plan for a data transmission antenna facility.
on our street, larkin street, at the crack of dawn at 6:30 a.m., healthy and conscious people are going up and down the street to broadway doing their jog before the go to work, going to either of the gyms two blocks away and later, before noon, we see mama s and paps and -- papas and nannies pushing their strollers going to play time at the park. this is an r3 busy street that the church lives on, that the church is on and so do i.. -- so i. -- so do i.
please denied a permit in a residential zone. thank you. -- please deny a permit in the residential zone. >> i work in the area and i agree with people who oppose the cell phone towers. there does not seem to be enough that the church can structurally supported the towers and also if there are places the towers could go that are in a commercial zone, that makes more sense to me that a residential neighborhood. thank you. >> our next speakers. >> good afternoon. having grown up next door to the church at 2057 larkin -- i have
definitely seen the way the church looks, especially from the outside. you can see the obvious lack of structural integrity to support something so big as 1 ton of weight all the way up on the top of the steeple. growing up next to the church, i would like to bring to your attention the people you see in front of you are opposed to as far as they're being a tower, 400 feet away in the commercial area, this is obviously unnecessary. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am a russian hill resident. i would like to comment about the proposed installation of
wireless and 10 that system in a residential neighborhood, to 41 larkin street. the structural stability of the building is doubtful. it is questionable whether the building can withstand the estimated wait of the equipment. at&t plans to install within the steeple of the building and on the second floor. the history is filled with negligence consisting of numerous and finished repairs, and partial seismic retrofit. following installation of this equipment in the building -- allowing installation of this equipment in a building which could be structurally unsound is a disaster in the making. i have concern the building is within less than a block away from three preschools and a busy playground which is always full of children. the traffic is heavy with parents and children going to and fro around 2041 larkin
street. their safety should be paramount. i respectfully request that you deny approval of a conditional use request to install the estimated 2,000 pounds of wireless system equipment at 2041 larkin street. thank you. >> good afternoon. i live within five blocks of 2041 larkin street. i am here because it is not clear why at&t the necessary to install wireless equipment at this church. the fact that this church is in a residential neighborhood and there is significant opposition should be enough to stop the installation of this equipment. the questionable structural integrity of this building and the lack of security or supervision along with an absence of seismic retrofitting are also significant concerns. aside from these issues, a lack
of a general plan for wireless systems in san francisco, it seems the should be resolved before a disputed plan is realized. there is also concern about what will happen with this equipment if the exception -- acquisition of t-mobile occurs. this may result in a redundancy of wireless equipment through the city especially considering the site near pol and -- polk and green. the building at polk and green seems to be in a residential area and is ideal. >> our next speakers.
in any order. >> president olague and board. i have lived there for 17 years with my son. i understand the churches need. other times it is unmanned. i have seen the lack of maintenance and have been concerned with my security, and the permits that have been pulled from 2003 that expire and this is the structural issues. this is the retrofit. this is dry rot that has not been addressed. the permit expired august 2011. for dry rot and the bell tower
that we're talking about putting 2,000 pounds of equipment, there are holes in the wall. this will follow us. -- fall on us. it is unmanned. tio collect money to put the community at risk for a structure that has been not proven to be sound is not necessarily -- necessary or desirable. this is a high residential area. there are other options and we ask you please to consider them. there will be redundancies. [bell] >> thank you. if i called her name, come on up. -- your name, come on up. >> i am an art sstuden --
student and in turn in the neighborhood less than a block away from the church. -- intern in the neighborhood less than a block away from the church. we value the esthetics of the neighborhood and i believe this cell phone tower would be better situated in a more commercial environment. the residential area is a beautiful neighborhood. i feel as though people living in the area would appreciate the tower being installed in a more commercial and firman. thank you. -- a more commercial environment. thank you. >> thank you.
i live in the area of the proposed planning and i proposed -- opposed because i believe it is a security risk for the church. it is not safe if everyone lives in the area around it. there is a proposed spot on polk, there is a better spot for. it is in a commercial area. thank you. -- there is a better spot for it. >> our next speakers. >> i thought i had two minutes. this is one -- 1:19. i live next door.
i would like to bring this back to what requirements are for this to be granted. the application package makes it clear that it must be shown to be necessary and desirable to the neighborhood and it may not have a potentially negative impact. if you look at the materials that have been submitted by at&t and go beyond the surface gloss, it is not clear they have met those standards. the back -- the matter is they have not demonstrated it is necessary they have this tower and one of the reasons why is they have not taken into account the other applications which the have pending. we have been told and i know that you know there is another application that is before you for a tower that will be 450 feet from this tower. you have already heard from surveys that were taken by residents that indicate that in fact there is no problem with
coverage at this time. you already know yourselves that there is a problem with redundancy and this commission has itself said it is very dissatisfied with this piecemeal approach, but one of the reasons why this piecemeal approach works as they can come before you and ignore every other application they have pending and pretend they do not exist and there is no interaction between them. t-mobile and at&t seek to merge. what is going to happen with those redundancies? [bell] why should there be a situation in which necessity is determined by whether they pay the church some money in order to get the rights to do this? this is not necessary. it is not desirable. it is potentially harmful for the neighborhood. thank you. >> are there any additional speakers? public comment is closed. i will make a couple of remarks.
i have talked to the department and some of the supervisors about an overall plan, number one, i do not think the supervisors have come together on the concept of it to and they have not provided enough funds for the department to do anything regarding it. as to safety, i hope everyone understands i have been repeating its week after week that this item goes before the department of public health and cannot come to us until it passes them. they are the determiner of the federal statutes. if you have a complaint as to radiofrequency, you have to go to the department of public health or to your federal senators and congress people.
they are the ones who determine the codes we have to go by. not us. as to safety, we are not structural engineers. this is the department of building inspection. they are the ones who have to deal with structural integrity, as they do with any building application. as to the fact that you can get cell phone coverage, please understand the vast majority of you is not your telephone were my telephone. this is about data transmission. that is pushing the need. i would ask the project sponsor if they can explain the need for
and there is a preference for the industrial structures with six as the limited preference. these are predominately residential. and we established the coverage gap, we are getting minute by minute information on the network. we know that data has surpassed voice and there are peak times of the day, and the usage for this are also in the packet and are early in the morning and late at night. this used to mean something when voice was the predominant use for cellular phones, and now with the mobile devices, we have surpassed the marketing fang that we referenced early
on. and we no longer use this in the marketing, because this is not relevant. we did it -- last week, i believe the commissioner said that we placed these facilities every few blocks, so that when the opponents make a reference to another place 450 feet away, this feels like a piecemeal process, and it is to the degree that each one of these requires of full permit and it takes about 18 months for us to develop this and do all of these reports, and submit to planning and in this process takes a considerable amount of time. we know whether dropped calls
are, we know where we have gaps in coverage, and so, this is a predominantly difficult place for us, in a largely residential area. there are concerns raised about the structural integrity. we're putting 650-pound antenna's here, and the building department will come out to investigate, looking at the report from the third party architectural engineer to determine if this is structurally sound. if it is not we will remedy this, and make certain that this is up to code. >> commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: my
understanding of the conditional use is that the item has to be necessary or desirable, not both. the demand is growing geometrically and telecommunications, for obvious reasons, two commissioners are using the i passed to go through -- ipad to go through the document. when i was first on the commission, none of the information was available, electronically. the usage is much higher. this is changing almost daily. there will be the need for more antennas, and as far as the city having to get involved or
regulate something outside of their jurisdiction, i believe this is a waste of time and energy. this is a federally regulated industry and they have the levels they feel comfortable with with nondiscrimination against competitors, whether or not there will be a merger in the future. and if you have problems, you should talk to your federal representatives, and a department without much more jurisdiction than we do. we would be changing providers and i think it would be counterproductive and a poor use of taxpayer dollars to set up the policy that would change
within a month there so. and a structural issue is something that we have to comment on. there are concerns about the structural integrity, and i feel members should take this up with the agency's that regulate or control the maintenance of the buildings and if you believe that this is not before us today, all of the other sites will be analyzed, seven different sites, with a case report, and there were quite a few who were analyzed. that would be my main feeling. but i would move to approve. >> this is seconded. >>